HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

Yet another Vitamin D thread, but for other cancers

Support Forums
>
Prostate Cancer
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
12
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 2/12/2015 7:21 PM (GMT 0)
I was just surfing around, and came on this study which I thought was possibly of a general interest. This is NOT related to PC, but rather lymphomas. Some of the statistical stuff is tough for me as always, but interesting to look at, since most of us will die of something other than PC, quite possibly even some other form of cancer:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2953973/

article said...
Recent data also suggest that vitamin D insufficiency is related to inferior prognosis in some cancers, although there are no data for NHL...............
Vitamin D insufficiency is common in the United States, with low levels linked in some studies to higher cancer incidence, including non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). Recent data also suggest that vitamin D insufficiency is related to inferior prognosis in some cancers, although there are no data for NHL.
Patients and Methods
We tested the hypothesis that circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] levels are predictive of event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) in a prospective cohort of 983 newly diagnosed patients with NHL......

Mean age at diagnosis was 62 years (range, 19 to 94 years); 44% of patients had insufficient 25(OH)D levels (< 25 ng/mL) within 120 days of diagnosis. Median follow-up was 34.8 months; 404 events and 193 deaths (168 from lymphoma) occurred. After adjusting for known prognostic factors and treatment, 25(OH)D insufficient patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) had inferior EFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% CI, 0.98 to 2.04) and OS (HR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.27 to 3.13); 25(OH)D insufficient patients with T-cell lymphoma also had inferior EFS (HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.04 to 3.61) and OS (HR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.04 to 5.41). There were no associations with EFS for the other NHL subtypes. Among patients with DLBCL and T-cell lymphoma, higher 1,25(OH)2D levels were associated with better EFS and OS, suggesting that any putative tumor 1-α-hydroxylase activity did not explain the 25(OH)D associations.
Conclusion

25(OH)D insufficiency was associated with inferior EFS and OS in DLBCL and T-cell lymphoma. Whether normalizing vitamin D levels in these patients improves outcomes will require testing in future trials.

Here is a table.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2953973/table/T2/
Notice that, depending on which cancer you are considering, the over all survival Hazard ratios(on far right) vary from a low of 1.35 to a high of 2.76 for the insufficient blood levels of Vit D (anything < 25 ng/mL) when compared to sufficient or reference, which was anything > 25 ng/mL. (I think I've got that right). Once after a period of supplementing with 2000 ius/day, I still only measured about 30. So I bet a fair number of us are < 25.

I thought these charts were also interesting, in a general sort of way.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2953973/figure/F1/
Notice particularly section D of Figure one, whih is looking at T cell Lymphoma overall survival. At 12 months out, looks like only about 55% are still alive in the < 25 ng/L insufficient group, vs what looks like about 80-90% in the sufficient group. Looking out to 4 years, it appears that about 75% of the sufficient group are still alive, vs a little over 40% of the deficient group.

Finally, take a look at these charts comparing actual blood levels:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2953973/figure/F2/
Once again, mainly look at block D or T Cell Lymphoma. Notice the solid blue line indicating the the hazard ratio of not being in the overall survival group vs the blood levels of Vitamin D. Look to the far left, for blood levels at say 20 and below, and notice how the risk of death is about 2.5 times the reference level of 25 ng/l. Then notice the proportional and steady drop in Hazard ratio all the way up to to levels of 40 where the HR is a remarkable .3 compared to the 25 ng/L level, and remaining at that lower level on past 50 where the chart ends.

True, looking at the C block(which is "Event Free" Survival- not sure what that was) next to it is not as dramatic, and indicates a bit of a U curve, which bottoms at 40 with a HR of about .5 and then ticks up a bit at higher levels, but still always better than levels below 25.

There are dotted lines on these charts having to do with probability or confidence that it is not just coincidence, I think. I don't quite know what to think of those, and they may well throw it all out with the bathwater. Maybe a statistician can tell us if that is so.

Still, I can't find any incidence where those with the higher levels did not do better than those with the lower, and sometimes better than even those in the middle. And true, this is not PC, but it does make me scratch my head trying to figure out if I am better off overall with somewhat higher levels of Vit D.

Then again, it's just one more study and there are always studies to indicate the opposite. And after all, it might not be the Vit D but something else related to higher Vit D levels. Apologies in advance if I am totally misreading the results of this study. After all, the authors don't seem all that excited about it. Then again, they rarely do. It's always "needs more study", which is a good thing.
Bill

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 2/12/2015 3:49:13 PM (GMT-7)

Posted 2/12/2015 8:18 PM (GMT 0)
Why does this concern you? Do you have T cell lymphoma?
Posted 2/12/2015 10:39 PM (GMT 0)

Tall Allen said...
Why does this concern you? Do you have T cell lymphoma?

Like I said above, just general interest, and maybe also the fact that most PC patients will meet their demise from something other than PC. And as I said: "And true, this is not PC, but it does make me scratch my head trying to figure out if I am better off overall with somewhat higher levels of Vit D.".

On a side note or side reason for interest, there are back and forth claims(including here at HW) that this Vitamin, or at a minimum avoiding any hint of deficiency of it, might be helpful for PC. Therefore, it might be of general interest to many to know of a study indicating possibly and apparently significant help in overall survival of patients with another cancer. Or if not the actual Vit D helping, then maybe some other factor associated with folks who have higher blood levels of Vit D seems to be helpful. So I thought that might interest some other PC brothers. Or not.

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 2/12/2015 3:52:11 PM (GMT-7)

Posted 2/12/2015 11:01 PM (GMT 0)
Every cancer is different, and has it's own unique genetic profile. Cures/treatments for one type of cancer are not necessarily of any use in another cancer. In fact, cures/treatments for some cancers may make other cancers worse. Not only is it not helpful, it can be harmful. There are innumerable websites on the net that use that kind of disinformation to prey upon cancer patients.

- Allen
Posted 2/13/2015 4:45 AM (GMT 0)

Tall Allen said...
Every cancer is different, and has it's own unique genetic profile. Cures/treatments for one type of cancer are not necessarily of any use in another cancer. In fact, cures/treatments for some cancers may make other cancers worse. Not only is it not helpful, it can be harmful. There are innumerable websites on the net that use that kind of disinformation to prey upon cancer patients.

- Allen

OK, Allen, I have about had about all I can take and remain polite. I have delayed quite a few hours while not responding to that bit of... well, I will hold off a bit longer. I have been waiting for you to edit or delete or apologize for that post with the implications or outright accusations you made. Or for the mods to comment or another member to step in in my defense. It appears none of that is going to happen, so I feel free to respond in kind. I have a very strong response ready, but I will wait until tomorrow to see if you want to reconsider the wording of that post. Either way, I have some more studies to report that will allay your fears as they will be strictly related to PC, and especially aggressive PC, even if I feel it is fine for folks to consider all cancers for their overall health. But just for you, tomorrow it will be PC only.
Bill

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 2/12/2015 9:49:19 PM (GMT-7)

Posted 2/13/2015 1:29 PM (GMT 0)
For what it's worth Bill, I thought you were very clear in your post that this is a general knowledge topic. A lot of people here deal with secondary cancers, either personally or with relatives, friends or acquaintances, absolutely nothing wrong with posting info that could help someone else.

People need to decide if a topic is applicable to them and not rely on others to tell them that it is or isn't. I think you have your head and heart in the right place, that is trying to help others and hope you continue to do so.

I don't think its right for other forum members to question your reasoning as to why you posted a topic or to be condescending, you either have a helpful comment or you don't. There is always a way to put an opposing view in a polite way. Members post threads for a reason (known or unknown) and that reason should be respected.

Anyway Bill, I certainly agree with the spirit of your above comments and think you've got your point across. Is there a need to escalate and have the thread locked?

Cheers, Doug
Posted 2/13/2015 2:36 PM (GMT 0)

Shaba.Doug said...
For what it's worth Bill, I thought you were very clear in your post that this is a general knowledge topic. A lot of people here deal with secondary cancers, either personally or with relatives, friends or acquaintances, absolutely nothing wrong with posting info that could help someone else.

People need to decide if a topic is applicable to them and not rely on others to tell them that it is or isn't. I think you have your head and heart in the right place, that is trying to help others and hope you continue to do so.

I don't think its right for other forum members to question your reasoning as to why you posted a topic or to be condescending, you either have a helpful comment or you don't. There is always a way to put an opposing view in a polite way. Members post threads for a reason (known or unknown) and that reason should be respected.

Anyway Bill, I certainly agree with the spirit of your above comments and think you've got your point across. Is there a need to escalate and have the thread locked?

Cheers, Doug

Thank you SO MUCH, Doug, for your soothing words. No, I think you are correct, no real good can come from escalating. Though I had an escalating response already prepared before my last post in this thread, for once I did not hit the send button after deciding I needed to cool off some more and give it some more time. After reading your post just now, I have decided that it is best to stay that course for now. I will, however, go ahead and link to(via PubMed links) a couple of recent studies that are more strictly related to PC only, not that even then anything is written in stone. One study hints at this, another at that. Someday maybe we will know. But in the meantime, I think the people here are intelligent and are able to look at studies on various health related matters and make a common since decision about whether that is useful information, even if something is not proven beyond any reasonable doubt. I do not see the harm if I, a PC brother, read(or report) a study that showing strong evidence ( HRs of 2 or 3 times) that some folks with a cancer other than PC, who are in one group do much better than folks who are in another group. I think we are all capable of reading various and often conflicting studies without suffering harm.

Again, thank you, Brother!
Posted 2/13/2015 2:52 PM (GMT 0)
Here is another recent study on Vitamin D, and this time it is just related to PC. Enjoy! Y'all may, or may not, find these interesting or even useful. Read with the usual caution and grain of salt, nothing is yet proven either way. Another similar study will follow in my next post. For your consideration, and/or as simply food for thought:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25085835
“1Departments of Cancer Biology, Urology, and Epidemiology and Prevention, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina [email protected].
Abstract
The effects of blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) on the risk of total, low-, and high-grade prostate cancer were examined in the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) and the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT). In the SELECT study, plasma 25-OHD levels were associated with a
linear decrease in prostate cancer risk for high-grade cancers in African American men and an apparent "U"-shaped effect in other men. The "U-shaped" curve may reflect detection bias. In the PCPT study, in which detection bias was minimized, serum 25-OHD levels were associated with a linear decrease in the risk of high-grade prostate cancers. The results from these large prevention trials support the hypothesis that circulating levels of 25-OHD decrease the risk of clinically relevant prostate cancers.”............................
Posted 2/13/2015 2:56 PM (GMT 0)
Billy, I totally agree with you! There are many types of personalities on the forum, running from passive to aggressive and all types in between. Some appreciate all types of information others only PCA. People need to determine the relevancy of a topic to their situation and partake in a constructive manner or disregard and move on.

Cheers, Doug
Posted 2/13/2015 3:27 PM (GMT 0)
A little more food for thought: one more recent study on the potential usefulness of higher levels of Vitamin D in the battle against PC(as well as, most likely, other cancers). Please keep in mind that none of these studies prove that taking Vitamin D supplements or getting more sunshine will do you any good or that they might not even harm you. All they "prove" - indeed if they even prove anything- is that higher blood levels of 25(OH)D may be helpful. As always, these higher blood levels could simply be a symptom of some other process which is the real helpful substance or behavior. Still, for those who might be interested, here you go:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25085836

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. said...

“Abstract
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014 Aug;23(8):1484-93. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-1340.
Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin d concentrations and risk of prostate cancer: results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial.
Schenk JM1, Till CA2, Tangen CM2, Goodman PJ2, Song X3, Torkko KC4, Kristal AR5, Peters U3, Neuhouser ML3.
Author information
1Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Cancer Prevention Program; [email protected].
2SWOG, Statistical Center;
3Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Cancer Prevention Program;
4Department of Pathology, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, Colorado.
5Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Cancer Prevention Program; Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; and.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Epidemiologic studies have reported inconsistent associations of vitamin D and prostate cancer risk; however, few have adequately controlled for detection bias related to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, and the results of many studies may be affected by occult prostate cancers among controls.
METHODS:
Data for this nested case-control analysis (n = 1,695 cases/1,682 controls) are from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. Baseline serum was analyzed for 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D]. The presence or absence of cancer was subsequently determined by prostate biopsy. Polytomous logistic regression models were used to estimate associations of 25(OH)D with risk of total, Gleason 2-6, Gleason 7, and Gleason 8-10 prostate cancer. Results are presented for placebo and finasteride arms separately and combined.
RESULTS:
There were no associations of serum 25(OH)D with total prostate cancer risk. For Gleason 2-6 cancers, results were inconsistent across treatment arms with a suggestion of increased risk in the placebo arm only; however, there was no dose-response relationship. For Gleason 8-10 prostate cancers, 25(OH)D concentrations were associated with a linear decrease in risk among combined treatment arms [quartile 4 vs. 1: OR, 0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.32-0.94; P(trend) = 0.04]. These findings were somewhat stronger among men ≥65 versus 55-64 years at baseline (quartile 4 vs. 1: OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18-0.88 vs. OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.35-1.52, respectively; P(interaction) = 0.52).
CONCLUSIONS:
Higher serum 25(OH)D may modestly increase risk of Gleason 2-6 disease and more substantially reduce risk of Gleason 8-10 prostate cancer.
IMPACT:
Vitamin D may have different effects for different stages of prostate cancers.
©2014 American Association for Cancer Research. ”

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 2/13/2015 12:51:49 PM (GMT-7)

Posted 2/13/2015 4:56 PM (GMT 0)
Sent you an email, Billy.

Cheers, Doug
Posted 2/13/2015 6:25 PM (GMT 0)
I was just surfing around—nothing better to do—and found this article on glucosamine chondroitin for dogs which might be of interest to others. http://www.petmd.com/dog/general-health/evr_dg_remedies_for_arthritis_in_dogs There have been other articles linking glucosamine to prostate cancer risk in men.   I took glucosamine chondroitin for about 10 years before my diagnosis. I’m a dog owner.   Well, not at the current time, but I have been a dog owner.   Now I have two cats.   Anyone else have cats? Anyhow, dogs can get prostate cancer, too.   I wonder if there is a link?   Further study in needed in this area.  
Posted 2/13/2015 6:30 PM (GMT 0)
LOL @ Jack's post
Posted 2/13/2015 6:44 PM (GMT 0)
From the University of Maryland:

"Prostate Cancer -- Preliminary research suggests that chondroitin may cause the spread or recurrence of prostate cancer. This effect has not been shown with chondroitin sulfate supplements. Still, until more is known, don't take chondroitin sulfate if you have prostate cancer or are at high risk for developing it (you have a brother or father with prostrate cancer)."


Source: Chondroitin | University of Maryland Medical Center

I too was on it years ago. Maybe not all that funny Allen!

Cheers, Doug
Posted 2/13/2015 6:49 PM (GMT 0)
wink  

 

Posted 2/13/2015 7:35 PM (GMT 0)
JackH said... <span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana', 'sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt">I was just surfing around—nothing better to do—and found this article on glucosamine chondroitin for dogs which might be of interest to others.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> <span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana', 'sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt">http://www.petmd.com/dog/general-health/evr_dg_remedies_for_arthritis_in_dogs <span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana', 'sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt">There have been other articles linking glucosamine to prostate cancer risk in men.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> I took glucosamine chondroitin for about 10 years before my diagnosis. <span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana', 'sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt">I’m a dog owner.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> Well, not at the current time, but I have been a dog owner.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> Now I have two cats.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> Anyone else have cats? <span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana', 'sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt">Anyhow, dogs can get prostate cancer, too.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> I wonder if there is a link?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> Further study in needed in this area. <span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana', 'sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt"> Well Jack, don't know if you are directing sarcasm at me or just providing some general interest info, though I highly suspect the former. But in case you are not being sarcastic(and I will assume the best out of you until I have "proof" otherwise), I would indeed be interested in any links you might have found re: PC(or any other cancer) and Glucosamine/Chondroitin(sp?) since I took it for a lot of years also. It may- or may not have- prevented me from developing the crippling arthritis that I was warned by my ortho surgeon that I'd get in 5 or 10 years after my severe ankle fracture. It has now been 25 years and no sign of it. I could also discuss with you some anecdotes about what that ortho surgeon( and sometimes me also along with him as I was sometimes giving the anesthesia for his patients) observed regarding what appeared to be new cartilage(sp?) growth on his patients who had been taking Glu.Cho. as they awaited their scheduled total knee replacement. We observed this as their knees were laid open during the total knee replacement, being comped to what had previously been observed and recorded during knee scopes. In fact, because of that sort of observation over many years, his office now recommends Glu.Cho. for many of their patients. Since you took that stuff for 10 years, did it help any? Why did you take it, since I suspect you had no proof that it would help anything. And yes, I was also a dog owner in the past but in recent years, due to my wife's insisting on owning them, I have come to appreciate cats. We currently, like you, have two cats. Thank you for your interest and your polite comment! Bill EDIT: i don't know whats up but the quote from Jack is shwing all of this computer code like ""mso-spacerun: yes">", dont know if Y'all see that or my computer has gone whacko. Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 2/13/2015 12:56:34 PM (GMT-7)
Posted 2/13/2015 7:41 PM (GMT 0)

Shaba.Doug said...
From the University of Maryland:

"Prostate Cancer -- Preliminary research suggests that chondroitin may cause the spread or recurrence of prostate cancer. This effect has not been shown with chondroitin sulfate supplements. Still, until more is known, don't take chondroitin sulfate if you have prostate cancer or are at high risk for developing it (you have a brother or father with prostrate cancer)."


Source: Chondroitin | University of Maryland Medical Center

I too was on it years ago. Maybe not all that funny Allen!

Cheers, Doug

Y'all may have saved my life! smilewinkgrin My wife had just started taking it again after many years, and I was also starting it along with her. I may put that on hold now until I get further information. Thanks for the info, even if nothing is proven yet and all is just "Preliminary research".
Posted 2/13/2015 8:24 PM (GMT 0)
(The server doesn't seem able to take my post - I'll try breaking it up in two parts)

Billybob,

Perhaps you didn't understand what I was saying. I should have been more specific, rather than speaking in vague generalities. I can demonstrate what I mean. Here's the conclusion from a nested case-control study within the PLCO screening trial (btw- there are "levels of evidence" that evidence-based medicine uses to assess the quality of the evidence. A large, confirmed randomized clinical trial is the gold standard.):

The authors said...
The findings of this large prospective study do not support the hypothesis that vitamin D is associated with decreased risk of prostate cancer; indeed, higher circulating 25(OH)D concentrations may be associated with increased risk of aggressive disease.


Serum Vitamin D Concentration and Prostate Cancer Risk: A Nested Case – Control Study

Because Vitamin D is cheaply purchased at CVS, we tend to forget that it's a powerful steroidal hormone. Like all medications, it ought to be taken if needed, but certainly not just because it was found beneficial for a different cancer.

- Allen
Posted 2/13/2015 8:36 PM (GMT 0)
(Part 2)

To my point about other cancers, a good example is retinoids (Vitamin A). It may help with gastric cancers, and squamous cell carcinoma. However, it's use has been found to increase mortality in smokers, and the effects persist even after it's stopped:

The authors said...
The Beta-Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial (CARET) tested the effect of daily β-carotene (30 mg) and retinyl palmitate (25 000 IU) on the incidence of lung cancer, other cancers, and death in 18 314 participants who were at high risk for lung cancer because of a history of smoking or asbestos exposure. CARET was stopped ahead of schedule in January 1996 because participants who were randomly assigned to receive the active intervention were found to have a 28% increase in incidence of lung cancer, a 17% increase in incidence of death and a higher rate of cardiovascular disease mortality compared with participants in the placebo group.


The Beta-Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial: Incidence of Lung Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality During 6-Year Follow-up After Stopping β-Carotene and Retinol Supplements
Posted 2/13/2015 8:39 PM (GMT 0)
Part 3

The harmful effects of Vitamin E with respect to prostate cancer have been well established in the SELECT trial.

Vitamins A, D & E are lipid soluble, and may persist in the body for a long time after exposure.

Yet websites like Life Extension Foundation unabashedly push these supplements without mentioning the safety issues. This is what we have to stand up against.

I think it's a good thing to air conflicting points of view, and for forum members to see what the controversy is about. So please continue to present your alternative point of view, but know that I and others may rebut it. To me, that's a big benefit of an open forum.

- Allen
Posted 2/13/2015 8:46 PM (GMT 0)
Rebuttal is part of the learning curve when done in a constructive manner, as shown above. But not by sarcasm or by being condescending, which at times we are.

Cheers, Doug
Posted 2/13/2015 10:18 PM (GMT 0)

Tall Allen said...
Part 3

The harmful effects of Vitamin E with respect to prostate cancer have been well established in the SELECT trial.

Vitamins A, D & E are lipid soluble, and may persist in the body for a long time after exposure.

Yet websites like Life Extension Foundation unabashedly push these supplements without mentioning the safety issues. This is what we have to stand up against.

I think it's a good thing to air conflicting points of view, and for forum members to see what the controversy is about. So please continue to present your alternative point of view, but know that I and others may rebut it. To me, that's a big benefit of an open forum.

- Allen

Thank you Allen, I see your point, and yes, I was aware of those studies. In fact we just had another very recent thread presenting a study which provided evidence against Vitamin D, I can't remember right now if it was a different study than the 2 you just highlighted. So there is evidence casting doubt, but there also seems to be fair amount of evidence leaning the other way, like the additional recent PC/VitD studies I have posted in this thread.

And again, as for the OP study, I just found it of general interest and I did not see the harm of posting a study that showed Vitamin D(blood levels anyway) to apparently be quite helpful in another form of cancer. Because, again repeating, most of us will die of something else. And the question is sometimes raised about the danger of RT causing other forms of cancer. And as I also said in my OP: "This is NOT related to PC, but rather lymphomas.................And true, this is not PC, but it does make me scratch my head trying to figure out if I am better off overall with somewhat higher levels of Vit D.

Then again, it's just one more study and there are always studies to indicate the opposite. And after all, it might not be the Vit D but something else related to higher Vit D levels. Apologies in advance if I am totally misreading the results of this study. After all, the authors don't seem all that excited about it. Then again, they rarely do. It's always "needs more study", which is a good thing.".

So, again, I just found to be of general interest to me, who is concerned about many health issues that surround my PC, that this study seemed to show spectacular results with increasing blood levels of Vit D against some cancers. Even if it might not be of help, and could possible even be of harm, in my battle against PC. Ans I thought it might also be of general interest to some other folks. However, to help lessen any possible misreadings, I later posted the studies for PC only, even if there are other conflicting studies. Maybe some one will find some of it interesting. Or not.
Posted 2/14/2015 12:14 AM (GMT 0)
When I read this sort of thing, I always want to remind myself that biochemistry, molecular biology, immunology, etc, are the youngest of the applied sciences. After all, we've only known how DNA works for about 60 years, and are just getting started on how the gene works. We're on the front edge here, guys. A wise professor of organic chemistry I knew (my father) explained it this way: Science is a structure built on quicksand. We drive down a few pilings to get a more or less stable base, and build on it until it starts to tip, then we go back and drive more pilings. We'll never get to bedrock, and we'll never stop building on top.

The 'may' and 'might' mean a great deal to a researcher, even if they are of little use to us.
Posted 2/14/2015 1:22 AM (GMT 0)
Part of the scientific process is that all evidence is not equal. There is consensus on the kinds of evidence that one can rely upon vs the kind of evidence that is merely hypothesis-generating for future studies. The first rule has to be safety. If there's a medication where there is evidence of harm, it should be looked at with suspicion. That's why we begin with Phase 1 safety studies. Since Vitamin D has been implicated, I think it prudent to not overdo it, until safety studies are completed.
Posted 2/14/2015 4:43 AM (GMT 0)

Tall Allen said...
Part of the scientific process is that all evidence is not equal. There is consensus on the kinds of evidence that one can rely upon vs the kind of evidence that is merely hypothesis-generating for future studies. The first rule has to be safety. If there's a medication where there is evidence of harm, it should be looked at with suspicion. That's why we begin with Phase 1 safety studies. Since Vitamin D has been implicated, I think it prudent to not overdo it, until safety studies are completed.

I think that is well said. Why "overdo it" until all the evidence is in? But shooting for a minimum of 25-30ng/L while avoiding 100 ng/L seems to be supported by quite a few different studies, for dealing with a number of cancers including PC, though I don't know when we will have proof one way or another. The old RCT.

Or at least medium to slightly high BLOOD LEVELS of 25(OH)D seems to have at least as much support- and probably even more supporting evidence- than evidence against it. Still, this is not the same thing as saying that taking Vitamin D supplements or getting Sun exposure is helpful. Unless they can show that these folks with the higher blood levels of 25(OH)D were taking supplements or getting sunshine, which maybe then would offer support for either approach. I am left to figure out what accounts for the higher blood 25(OH)D that seems to be related in more than a few studies to the folks who do so much better with a number of cancers. Could it be something other than sunshine or supplements? Some genetic or metabolic explanation?
Bill
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
12